HAL Id: hal-01953377
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01953377
Submitted on 7 Jan 2019
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.
Deer Antler during the French Mesolithic: Technical Exploitation and Symbolic Aspects
Benjamin Marquebielle, Gabrielle Bosset
To cite this version:
Benjamin Marquebielle, Gabrielle Bosset. Deer Antler during the French Mesolithic: Technical Ex-ploitation and Symbolic Aspects. Where The Wild Things Are: Recent Advances in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Research, Mar 2012, Durham, United Kingdom. 2012. �hal-01953377�
major areas with decorated antler artefacts graves with antler structures
debitage shaping
Deer Antler during the French Mesolithic
Technical Exploitation and Symbolic Aspects
Bibliography :
(1) Ginestet, J.-P., Bintz, P., Chaix, L., Evin, J. et Olive, C. (1984). L'abri sous roche de la vieille église La Balme-de-Thuy (Haute Savoie) Premiers Résultats. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, t.81, n °10-12, p. 320-342.
(2) Goutas, N. (2002). L'exploitation des bois de cervidés dans les niveaux gravettiens de la grotte d'Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques) : le procédé d'extraction de baguette par double rainurage longitudinal. in Cattelain, P., Patou-Mathis, M. et Ramseyer, D. (ed.), L'industrie osseuse pré- et
protohistorique. Approches Technologiques et fonctionnelles. Actes du colloque 1.6, XIV° congrès de l'UISPP, Liège, 2001, Bulletin du cercle archéologique Hesbaye-Condroz, p. 19-28.
(3) Lacam, R., Niederlender, A. et Valois, H. (1944). Le gisement mésolithique du Cuzoul de Gramat. Archives de l'Institut de paléontologie humaine, mémoire n°21, 92 p.
(4) Laplace-Jauretche, G. (1953). Les couches à escargots des cavernes pyrénéennes et le problème de l'Arisien de Piette. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, t. 50, p.199-211.
(5) Marquebielle, B. (2011). Mesolithic bone tools of South-West Europe : the example of the French site of le Cuzoul de Gramat (Lot). in Kufel-Diakowska, B. et Baron, J. (ed.), Written in Bones.
Studies on technological and social contexts of past faunal skeletal remains. 7th Meeting of the Worked Bone Research Group, September 7-11, 2009, Wroclaw, Poland, Uniwersytet Wroclawski, Instytut
Archeologii, p. 63-79.
(7) Péquart, M. et Péquart, S.-J. (1934). La nécropole mésolithique de l'île d'Hoëdic (Morbihan).
L'Anthropologie, t. 44, p.1-20.
(8) Péquart, M., Péquart, S.-J., Boule, M. et Valois, H. (1937). Téviec : station-nécropole mésolithique du Morbihan. Archives de l'Institut de paléontologie humaine, mémoire n°18, 227 p.
(9) Péquart, M. et Péquart, S.-J. (1954). Hoëdic : deuxième station-nécropole du mésolithique côtier
armoricain. De Sikkel, Anvers, 93 p.
(10) Plonka, T. (2003). The Portable Art of Mesolithic Europe. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wroclawskiego, Wroclaw, 611 p.
(11) Schulting, R. J. (1996). Antlers, bone pins and flint blades : Mesolithic cemeteries of Brittany.
Antiquity, vol. 70, n°268, p.335-350.
(12) Smith, C. (1990). British Antler Mattocks. in Bonsall, C. (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe. Actes du 3°
symposium international de l'U.I.S.P.P., Edinburgh, 1985, John Donald Publishers, p. 367 - 378.
(13) Valdeyron, N., Bosc-Zanardo, B., Briand, T., Henry, A., Marquebielle, B. et Michel, S. (2011). Le gisement du Cuzoul de Gramat (Lot, France) : présentation des nouveaux travaux et résultats préliminaires. in Sénépart, I., Perrin, T., Thirault, E. et Bonnardin, S. (ed.), Marges, frontières et
transgressions. Actes des 8° Rencontres Méridionales de Préhistoire Récente, Marseille, 7 et 8 novembre 2008, Archives d'Ecologie Préhistorique, Toulouse, p. 197-211.
benjamin.marquebielle@yahoo.fr
Jan. Feb. March April May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Déc.
Antler shedding season Antler growth Rutting season
Fig. 2 : annual evolution of red-deer antlers
Fig. 1 : the differents parts of a red-deer antler (from (2))
Benjamin Marquebielle (Toulouse II - UMR 5608 TRACES)
bosset.gabrielle@hotmail.com
in collaboration with Gabrielle Bosset (Paris I - UMR 7041 ARSCAN)
soft tissues (skin, sinew... : exploitation difficult to understand) hard animal materials
The exploitation of deer antler is the topic of this poster :
both osseous and deciduous (Fig. 2), antler is between the animal and vegetal worlds (in French, the translation “bois” indicate both vegetal and animal structure) obtain by hunting or the gathering of shed antler
The study of Cuzoul de Gramat is a good exemple to understand the evidence about the domestic exploitation of deer antler for toolkit production. The site consists of a cave and a wide rock-shelter in a large limestone depression. The first excavations were carried out between 1922 and 1933 by R. Lacam et A. Niederlender. They found a deep stratigraphy (fig.
3), covering all of the Mesolithic and a famous mesolithic grave (3). New excavations began in 2005 (13).
What about the antler equipment of second Mesolithic ? The antler supply was provided by the harvest of shed antler, and large sized antlers were favoured. Their exploitation was mainly oriented toward blank production by sectioning
beams or tines, which were shaped to create bevelled tools (fig. 4)
by longitudinal scraping, limited to
the active part (fig. 5).
The significant number of debitage
waste products on tines and mental refittings could indicate that the production of blanks on beams seemed to be more frequent than the debitage of blanks on tines. The low number of finished objects on beam segments compared with the amount of waste products, could indicate that Le Cuzoul de Gramat was a production site occupied during the antler shedding season (5).
The old excavations on the sites of Téviec and Hoëdic in Brittany are the main source of information concerning the symbolic use of antlers. Excavations was carried out by M. and S.-J. Péquart, between 1928-1930 at Téviec (fig. 7) and 1931-1933 at Hoëdic (fig. 6). They discovered second Mesolithic sites, with domestic occupations and importantly vast cemeteries in huge shell middens (7, 8, 9).
In some graves, deer antlers (often complete, from hunted animals or shed antlers) are associated with the bodies, forming tent-like structures (Téviec) (fig. 9) or frames (Hoëdic) (fig. 8) over the
head and shoulders. Such graves at Téviec (2 examples) and
Hoëdic (4 examples) tend
to be of the oldest individuals and the richest burials. M. and S.-J. Péquart discussed the significance of these structures (from hunting trophies to the burial of shamans) and highlighted their prestige nature. A recent study has noted the link between antler structures and the richness ob object placed with the body (11).
Antler exploitation at the Cuzoul de Gramat
Antler use at Teviec and Hoedic
At Teviec and Hoëdic, complete antlers were placed in the graves without major modification. Was the shape suggestive ? Was it a way to represent the whole deer, a major game animal ? But in that case, why use shed antler ? Or were these deciduous hard material a regeneration/rebirth symbol ? In any case, the link between antler structures and prestige is clear. The Mesolithic populations seemed to desire the antler for its symbolic aspects rather than for its mechanical properties.
Mesolithic populations exploited red deer antler mainly to produce heavy bevelled tools used as mattocks or picks rather than as axes as suggested by use-wear traces (12). Antler is a perfect raw material being both hard and flexible and so able to resist shock without breaking.
Mesolithic populations were more concerned with the physical and mechanical properties of antler. Appearance was a minor importance: shaping was limited to the active part, while debitage marks were not removed by the craftsmen and there was no finishing or decoration of the final object.
Fig. 3 : stratigraphic section. 2nd Mesolithic levels are framed (from (3))
fig. 5 : heavy bevelled tool with details of debitage and shaping traces
Fig. 6 : Hoëdic, localisation of the graves (from (9))
Fig. 7 : Téviec, localisation of the graves (8)
Fig. 8 : Hoëdic, the grave K (9)
Fig. 9 : Téviec, the grave A (8)
New study of the former collections of Cuzoul de Gramat enabled us to reconstruct precisely the technical scheme for the transformation of deer antler. This scheme, or more often parts of it, has been identified identified in material from sites throughout France (for exemple (1), (4)...). However, the sites of Teviec and Hoëdic are exeptionnal for the region while the use of antler structures in funerary deposits are also limited to these two sites.
Fig. 10 : decorated antler shaft from Longueil, France (10)
antler artefacts decorated antler artefacts graves with antler structures
Fig. 11 : localisation of French antler objects (decorated and undecorated) and graves with antler structures
Fig. 12 : localisation of western European decorated antler objects and graves with antler structures
E nr iks en , 1 980 waste
product activepart
a b
Fig. 13 : different exploitation of antler (a : example from Cuzoul de Gramat, France / b : example from Lundby-Holmen, Danemark)
Teeth : mainly canines (perforated and used as ornaments)
Bones : mainly long ones (often exploited with simple actions, like percussion) Antlers (fig. 1) : used to make domestic tools but also symbolic objects
Red deer was one of the main game animal of the french Mesolithic. A source of food, it was also the source of various raw materials :
Emblematic raw material of Azilian cultures (flat harpoons) and, later, of the Neolithic (haft sockets), the exploitation of deer antler during the French Mesolithic is less well known but some recent studies have begun to shed light on the production of antler tools. We shall expose the use of antler via three French examples: one a domestic context (recently studied from a technological point of view) and two funerary contexts, all dated to 2nd Mesolithic. We shall show that the same raw material was used for very different purposes, behaviours that are also seen beyond France.
Fig. 4 : technical transformation scheme of deer antler
Simple tools are found throughout France while decorated tools and antler funerary structures are only found in the northern third of the country (fig. 11). Decorated antler objects are missing from southern part of France and instead decorated objects are made out of stone or bone. Three types of items :
simple domestic tools (undecorated) decorated domestic tools
funeral antler structures
Moreover these two ways of antler exploitation, some objects are both part of domestic and symbolic sphere of activity. For example, there are decorated pieces like hafts found during dredging of the Oise river (fig. 10) (10).
If we compare the distribution of decorated tools and antler funerary structures on larger European scale (fig.
12), the division between the northern third part and
the rest of France can be seen in the light of northern European influences.
Furthermore, in the case of tool production, antler debitage is also different between northern and southern Europe. In northern countries, base, including burr, is a part of the finished objects (and sometimes the active part). In the south, the base is a waste product (fig. 13).
Deer antler during the french Mesolithic :
N. Cavanhié, A. Chevalier, J.B. Fourvel, D. Kuntz, J. Lacarrière, M. Loughton, M.C. Soulier : thank you !
a same raw material for very different purposes
throughout France, importance of physical and mechanical properties of antler in the third north, importance of symbolic aspects
beware of the problem of differential preservation
northern european influences ? > decoration / funerary structures / debitage
bog sites in the north Vs cave sites in the south
